rpheavenfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Iron Brotherhood/@comment-5140536-20131128034327/@comment-151.229.237.90-20131201203703
I disagree with the rank and structure; the ranks are far too high and the fact you have bishops would be heretical to the Church of the Holy Light. A grand master would not have the power to ordain bishops, nor would he be able to add any credence to the rank. That would be a preserve and prerogative of the Church. The Church, in fact, seems to be disregarded entirely by the order; yet, fundamentally, the Church is what governs human perspective of the Light. Remember that when you read of the Light on wiki articles, you're reading the "factual canon" interpretation with draenei, human, Naaru, and others, incorporated; it's objective! Why is that bad in role play? Objectivity is both a role player's tool and worst enemy. Your character will not be objective, it will be entirely subjective; that is what the roles are. You must carry all their ignorances to the fore, and therefore, the Light is not holisitically philosophical in practice; it does have its religious and dark aspects, and it isn't entirely spiritual. In fact the Church, proven by the power of the Knights of the Silver Hand and the way it has been used by the Scarlet Crusade (there are more examples), could be argued as political. Despite Blizzard's procrastination they have left marks of the Catholic Church on the Church of the Holy Light. You have to take this into mind when playing humans; their Church is powerful and some of Stormwind law relates back to the Church's rules. (TL;DR: Separate the "Light" from the "Church of the Holy Light".) A Knight Commander should simply be a Knight Captain; a knight commander is a very high rank in the Alliance, and implies the command of over fifty knights. Something you won't be able to fulfil realisitically and believably. Knights are incredibly expensive to have, and this 'order', alike many military guilds, does not seem to be substantiated in the realms of demense and finance; a knight needs a feudal base, otherwise he is not a knight. "The backing of the nobles" is loose and unexplained; wishy-washy, really. Nobles are largely self-seeking; they wouldn't support something that would be so far out of their control unless it provided benefit for them. As for Knights, it's not very common for them to run around looking for work - as stories might have you believe. They aren't adventurers, they aren't heroes and they certainly aren't always faithful and good people. Don't confuse them with paladins. A knight is a tenant of the land and a soldier. He works for his noble as a small land owner that keeps the peasants in check, and in return his noble funds him and provides him horse, blade and plate. The oaths they take are often meaningless in religious terms and more feudal than anything else. They have more freedom than a peasant but they aren't exactly free. Furthermore, some of the "laws" and "oaths" are slightly paradoxical if not contradictory at times. If anyone may join that worships the Light, who is to say that they bow to the same King that this order has pledged its service to? A draenei for example (not that a draenei would have any reason to join a band of knights in an order) would not swear itself to a King and a Church that fundamentally contradicts draenei practice. It's foreign cultures and customs; their Light is different to the human's concept of "the Light".